II

I
[
MUFON UFO JOURNAL
NUMBER 228 APRIL 1987

$2.50
MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC-

LIGHT YEARS FROM HOME?

 MUFON UFO JOURNAL
(USPS 002-970)
(ISSN 0270-6822)
103 Oldtowne Rd.
Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.
DENNIS W. STACY
Editor
WALTER H ANDRUS, JR.
International Director and
Associate Editor
THOMAS P. DEULEY
Art Director
MILDRED BIESELE
Contributing Editor
A NN DRUFFEL
Contributing Editor
PAUL CERNY
PromotiorVPublicity
MARGE CHRISTENSEN
Public Relations
REV. BARRY DOWNING
Religion and U FO s
LUCIUS FARISH
Books/Periodicals/H istory
ROSETTA HOLMES
Promofiotv'Publicity
T. SCO TT CRAIN
GREG LONG
MICHAEL D. SW ORDS
S taff Writers
TED PHILLIPS
Landing Trace C ases
JOHN F. SCHUESSLER
M edical C ases
LEONARD STRING FIELD
UFO C rasV R ctrieval
WALTER N. WEBB
Astronomy
NORMA E. SHORT
DWIGHT CONNELLY
DENNIS HAUCK
RICHARD H. HALL
ROBERT V. PRATT
Ed itor/Publishers Emeritus
(Formerly SKYLOOK)
The MUFON UFO JOURNAL is
published by the Mutual UFO
Network. Inc., Seguin, Texas.
M em bership/S ubscription rates:
$25.00 per year in the U.S.A,; $30.00
foreign in U.S. funds, Copyright 1987
by the Mutual UFO Network. Second
class postage paid at Seguin, Texas.
POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 to
advise change of address to The
MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103
Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155­
4099.
FROM THE EDITOR
II what’s coming in over the transom is any indication, this could
well be a pivotal year for ufology in more ways than one. Much of Ihe
. editorial input concerns two controversial books, Whitley Slrieber's
Communion and Budd Hopkins! Intruders, which deal with the
abduction experience in new depth and immediacy. Those with long
memories can still remember a time when abduction accounts were
discounted on the face of it, in much the same way that NICAPand
other early UFO organizations dismissed the first humanoid
occupant cases. Obviously, the humanoid reports did not go away,
and neither did the abductions. Both have now been universally, if
uneasily, incorporated within the UFO lexcion.
Bu t Communion and Int ruders combined representagianlslep
in the interpretation of UFO occupant behavior. Whether either (or
neither) of those interpretations will be assimilated into ufology at
large remains to be seen. For the moment, a clear and presumably
logical progression in the evolution of the extraterrestrial hypothesis
seems self-evident. Shortly after the UFO phenomenon itself was
established, its otherworldly origin was taken for granted. Then Ihe
presence of humanoid beings aboard UFOs was gradually assumed,
though interaction with humans was generally regarded as passive,
or nonexistent. Finally, came the admission that UFO occupants
were actively engaged in abductions of unwitting human beings as a
prelude to physical examination. Now, Intruders, at least, has raised
the stakes ol the ET interface even higher by outlining a
sophisticated program of genetic experimentation, involving sperm
extraction and artificial insemination by alien visitors. To accomplish
such a program, a mind-boggling logistics operation involving the
monitoring of abductees, in. some cases since childhood, is called
for.
It’s too early to tell which way the willow will bend. What is
known is that in issues to come, the forges of ufology are apt to heat
up. And where there's smoke, there’s fire. From the ashes a bird of a
new order should emerge.
In this issue
LIGHT YEARS: AN OPEN LETTER by G ary K in d er.................................... 3
HOLY COMMUNION? by Dr. Barry H, D ow ning..........................................8
U FO EVENTS & MICHIGAN WEATHER by Ran W rig h t....................... 10
N EWS’NVIEWS ................................................................................................. 13
SIGHTING COEFFICIENT by Don B erlin er............. ................................ 14
AMAZING STORIES by Jay F is c h e r ............................................................ 15
THE APRIL NIGHT SKY by W alter N. W eb b ............................................. 16
THE MAY NIGHT SKY by W alter N. W e b b ............................................... 18
DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE by Walt A ndrus .................................. 20
COVER: 35mm b&w taken near Diamond Peak, Oregon, November 22,1966.
The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a publicly
supported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2). Donors
may deduct contributions from their Federal income tax. In addition,
bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Federal
estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of
Sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.
The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and do
not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributors
are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.
Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles may
be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in a short article (up to about
2,000 words). Thereafter, the “50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply but
will be allowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer the
author but will be allowed half the wordage used in the author’s reply, etc. All
submissions are subject to editing for style, clarity.and conciseness.
Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issue provided not more than 200
words are quoted from any one article, the author ol the article is given credit, and the
statement “Copyright 1987 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,
Texas 78155" is included.
 LIGHT YEARS: AN OPEN LETTER
I have received so many phone
calls and letters (and copies of letters
sent to others) about the forthcoming
LIGHT YEARS, it seems appropriate
for me to write a letter of explanation.
Had ( not been involved with the arrival
of a new daughter two weeks ago, I
would have written this letter much
sooner. I know that many of you were
confused to hear I was writing a book
on Meier; 1also know that most of you
will understand when 1 offer a proper
explanation. Here it is.
Though no one in the UFO
community has seen the manuscript for
LIGHT YEARS, m uch of the
vehemence over its publication seems
to arise from a feeling that I betrayed
the UFO community, that 1 pretended
to be interested in ufology, its history,
arid its people, when my only intention
was to write about Meier. Some of you
may have felt used.
1 have been researching the Meier
case since the fall of 1983. In 1984 and
the first half of 1985,1 made three trips
to Switzerland totaling about thirteen
weeks in country visiting the alleged
contact sites, speaking with Meier,
interviewing witnesses (some of whom
are detractors), and talking to
neighbors, town administrators, etc. 1
also made side trips to- Munich arid
London. In the States I traveled several
times to Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff,
San Jose, and the Los Angeles area to
speak with the people who had
investigated the case, the ufologists
who had called it a hoax (Korff,
Lorenzen, Moore, Spaulding), and the
scientists who had analyzed the Meier
evidenced Yes, qualified scientists,
engineers, and a special effects expert
did analyze the Meier evidence.
Everyone I talked to in the UFO
community, except Lou Farrish,
warned me that the Meier case was
poison. They said that Meier made
preposterous claims about traveling
back and forth in time to speak with
Jesus and to photograph the future
By Gary Kinder
destruction of San Francisco. Some
pointed to Bill Spaulding and said that
he had found ten of the Meier photos to
be patently fraudulent. Others pointed
to Kal Korff, who, they claimed, had
conducted an exemplary investigation
of the case. After two years of research
and over 120 interviews in Switzerland
and the U.S., 1 finally told my editor I
simply could not make sense of the
Meier case; it all was too confusing, and
I had no idea how to begin laying out the
story. If everything I had uncovered
concerning the case had proved to be
negative, I would have found it easy to
abandon the project — my editor had
given me that option from the beginning;
the problem was that 1discovered many
aspects of the case that truly were
intriguing and difficult to explain.
In the meantime I had read many
books on ufology to become familiar
with the field, and I found the UFO
community and the history of UFOs
fascinating. I felt there was a book in it,
and during the fall of 1985 I began to
focus my research on the broader
picture, traveling first to Washington,
D.C., to spend a week with Dick Hall,
Bruce Maccabee, Larry Bryant, et al.,
though 1 still was under contract for a
book on Meier. (When Maccabee
asked me how 1 became interested in
the field, I told him and several others
present at a Fund meeting that my first
exposure was through the Meier case.)
My editor agreed that a bigger UFO
book would be a good one. I began to
concentrate on this book, quitting work
on Meier, packing up all of my research
on him in big boxes, and throwing them
into the basement.
W h en 1 s p o k e w ith th e
Washington; D.C. group, and later in
the spring/summer of 1986 attended
Hal Starr’s conference in Phoenix, the
MUFON symposium in Lansing, and
Sprinkle’s contactee convention in
Laramie, I myself was under the
impression my research was for a book
on ufology, not the Meier case. At the
same time I began traveling to attend
the variou UFO symposia to acquaint
myself with more of the community, my
editor met with me in Phoenix at Starr’s
conference and encouraged me at least
to give the Meier story a try, just to
write it simply and as it happened.
Continue to research the other book,
he said, but get something on paper
about Meier. With that completed, I
could go on to the bigger book on
ufology.
' So I pulled my Meier research out
of the basement and forced myself to sit
down and wade through all of it to try to
piece something together. Once 1 did
that, though, all of a sudden LIGHT
YEARS came pouring out of me. A 15-
page treatment grew in three weeks to a
100-page outline, and in three months I
had a 300-page manuscript. Then 1 re­
wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote. Once
it began to fall together I liked it more,
and when I assembled all of the quotes
from the scientists the story began to
feel far more solid than it had white: I was
researching. I also finally located the
two sound engineers who had analyzed
Meier’s audio tapes, and the special
effects expert who had studied the
Meier 8mm footage and some of the
photos back in 1980.
■The two engineers told me the
sounds were unlike anything they had
ever heard, or seen, on a spectrum
analyzer. The special effects expert
informed me that Meier could have
created the films and photographs only
with a team of experts and tens of
thousands of dollars w orth of
sophisticated equipment. (From my
own experiences in Switzerland I knew
that neither of these existed.) 1 had
heard so many negative references to
Meier for so long I had nearly forgotten
similar intriguing things that the
the scientists had told me two years
earlier.
(continued next page)
3

FINAL DRAFT
My editor liked what I was writing.
He showed it to'the people at Atlantic
Monthly Press, where he has his new
imprint, and everyone there liked it too.
Last October they took the first half of
the manuscript to the Frankfurt Book
Fair as their lead title, while I continued
to work on the manuscript, as it was far
from being finished. 1 honestly don’t
know how many drafts I finally
completed, but the figure is somewhere
between five and seven. Then last fall
two things happened: My editor felt that
the Meier story needed to be set in
historical context, that I needed to
provide the reader with background on
the UFO phenomenon itself. Not only
did I already have a tremendous
amount of research in that area, I had
also completed 35 pages of a proposal
on the bigger UFO book. I expanded
that work, pulled in more detail, and
weaved it into the Meier story. You wilt
find about one-half of the second half of
LIG H T YEARS is all Arnold,
Robertson, Condon, Hynek, Blue
Book, Hill, etc.
The seond thing that happened
was that when my editor took the
manuscript to Frankfurt he discovered
that even in Europe books on UFOs are
difficult to sell, too difficult. After that
experience he and his publisher both
told me they felt it would be unwise for
me to follow a book on Meier with
another book on UFOs. So we decided
to utilize all of my research into the
history of ufology for the Meier book
and go on to something new for my next
project, a decision that frankly left me
not too unhappy. Ufology is a
frustrating field to research and more
frustrating to try to make sense of and
put down on paper in a readable
fashion. Emotions run so high and
name-calling among the ufologists
{even without the Meier case) , is so
ram pant, a writer finds himself
wallowing in explanations and counter
explanations until every sentence
dissolves; into battle and nothing is
decided.
Anyhow, the foregoing is why
many of you (and I) thought I was
researching a book on ufology when we
met in Michigan, or Washington, D.C.,
4
or Phoenix, or Laramie. Prior to
beginning that general research, I
always informed those I interviewed
that while 1wished to know more about
■the entire field, I was particularly
interested in the Meier case. Spaulding,
Moore, Lorenzen, Korff, Starr, all knew
back in 1984-85 that 1 was looking
primarily at the Meier case during the
early part of my research. This
sentence from my letter to Kal Korff on
March 28, 1985, is indicative:
“I am researching a book about the
. UFO community, what it does, who it
is, where it is {in more ways than one).
I’m particularly interested in the Swiss • green but never rose; it continued to
Case or the Meier case, which seems to
have generated a fair amount of
emotion within the community. I know
, you have referred to it.-as the most
infamous hoax in the history of
ufology.” - people had tried to duplicate the
The next quote cames from a letter
written by Bill Spauling the.day after I
interviewed him. ; “perfect.” I listened to dozens of such
■“It was a pleasure talking to you on stories, so many I could not include all
January 6,1985 regarding the subject of
unidentified flying objects and the Billy . sightings of strange lights reported by a
Meier hoaxed UFO photographs...
Because the Meier incident is such an
obvious hoax, any further publicity
extended to this incident...will only
provide additional ■exposure to this
case... We cannot involve ourselves to
’ any extent which . could further
generate favorable publicity for the
conspirators of the Pleiades book.”
In a small community whose
members correspond regularly, it was
no secret that 1 was researching the
Meier case. ■.
Now on to the substance of
LIGHT YEARS. Many of the witnesses
I interviewed in Switzerland, none of
whom had ever been contacted by
anyone in ufology, had seen things
happen to Meier that no one could
explain: Standing next to another man;
he once disappeared instantly from the
roof of a barn twelve feet off the ground;
in a separate incident he suddenly
reappeared, warm and dry, in a group
of men standing in a dark and secluded
forest in a freezing rainstorm. These
scenes, associated with alleged contact
experiences, appear in much greater
detail in the book. They may be tricks,
but if so they were performed by a
master illusionist.
When Meier claimed to have had a
contact, sets of three six-foot diameter
circles would appear in a meadow
surrounded by thick woods. 1 did not
see these myself, but I talked to several
people who had seen them and who had
photographed them while still fresh.
Swirled counter-clockw ise and
perfectly delineated in tall grass, one set
remained for nine weeks, until a farmer
came and mowed the grass; Here is the
mystery of the landing tracks: Grass
that is green rises even after being
mashed down; grass that dies turns
brown and lies flat. This grass remained
grow in a flat circle. The landing tracks
puzzled everyone I spoke to who had
viewed them, including Meier’s most
ardent detractor, Hans Schutzbach.
Schutzbach told me that other
landing tracks, but that their efforts
were “a bad copy.” Meier’s were
of them in the book, including nighttime
variety of people, many of whom
witnessed the same incidents and
corroborated each other’s accounts.
One nighttime photograph, taken by a
school principal from Austria during an
alleged contact, will appear in the book.
On the other side, I know that Meier’s
photos of the alleged future destruction
of San Francisco, for instance, came
right out of the September, 1977, issue
of GEO Magazine. After one of the
witnesses reported this to me; I found
the magazine myself and compared the
photographs. They were identical. All
of this is in the book — the crazy claims,
the apparent lies, the unexplained
disappearances, the mysterious landing
tracks, all weaved into the narrative.
MORE EVIDENCE
In L ondon, Tim othy G ood
provided me with many lengthy letters
from Lou Zinsstag (who often had been
pointed out by ufologists in the States
as one who thought that Meier was a
fraud and “crazy”). Zinsstag had
written the tetters between June, 1976,
and October, 1977, as she investigated
Meier and reported back to Good. In
one letter she calls Meier “the most
 intriguing man I have ever met.” She
goes into great detail in her-
observations, including a description of
“this feeling of discomfort” she
experiences in Meier’s presence. In
another letter she writes, “If Meier
turns out to be a fake, I shall take my
whole collection of photographs to the
ferry boat and drown it in the old man
river of Basle.” . >
Back in the States 1 interviewed
nine sc ie n tists/e n g in e e rs/sp e c ia l
effects experts who had analyzed or
otherwise studied the Meier evidence.
(One, Bob' Post, is none of the three,
but heads the photo lab at JPL.)
Following is a sampling of what they had
to say. Realize that where the photos
are concerned an original transparency
was never available for' analysis, so
none of the work done on those was
definitive (Spaulding himself told me he
had no idea the generation of the
' photographs he analyzed); however,
knowing this limitation, the scientists
who did agree to examine them told me
they would have been able to detect all
but a very sophisticated hoax.
Dr. Michael Malin is an associate
professor of planetary sciences at
Arizona State University; he wrote his ■ sound source recording that had an
doctoral thesis on, the computer
analysis of spacecraft images beamed
back from Mars. He was at JPL for four
years and he’s worked with the special
effects people at LucasFilm. He works
under various government grants at
ASU, and a recent experiment he
devised has just been accepted for a
future Shuttle launch. A friend of mine . Meier photographs to. have- copies
who is the science editor at National
Geographic and who has researched
and written many cover stories on the
Universe, the Space Shuttle, etc., had
spoke to Malin before and once told
me, “If Malinsays it, you can believe it.”
Here is one thing Malin said
concerning the Meier photographs
which he analyzed in 1981: “I find the
photographs themselves incredible,
they’re good photographs. They
a p p e a r to r e p r e s e n t a re a l
phenomenon. The story that some
farmer in Switzerland is on a first name
basis with dozens of aliens who come
and visit him...] find that incredible. But
1 find the photographs more credible.
They’re reasonable evidence of
something. What that something is I
don’t know.”
Malin also told me, “If the
photographs are hoaxes then 1 am
intrigued by the quality of the hoax.
How did he do it? I’m always interested
in seeing a master at work.” These
quotes, and all of the rest of the quotes I
attribute to the scientists here, appear
verbatim in the book.
SOUNDS
Steve Ambrose, sound engineer
for Stevie Wonder and inventor of the
Micro Monitor, a radio set complete
with speaker that fits inside Wonder’s
ear, analyzed the Meier sound
recordings. “The sound recording’s got
some surprising things in it,” he told me.
“How would you duplicate it? I’m not
, just talking about how to duplicate it
audio-wise, but how do you show those
various things on a spectrum analyzer
and on the ’scope that it was doing? It’s
one thing to make something that
sounds like it, it’s another thing to make
something that sounds like it and has
th o s e c o n s is te n t ■an d : ran d o m
. oscillations . in it. The sound of the
spacecraft,” he added, “was a single
amazing frequency response. If' it is a
hoax I’d like to meet the guy that did it,
because he could probably make a lot
of money in special effects.” His
findings were corroborated by another
sound engineer named Nils Rognerud.
. In 1979 Dr. Robert Nathan at JPL
was sufficiently impressed with the
made of Meier transparencies at the
JPL photo lab. After the transfer he
refused to analyze the photographs,
however, because his developer
d is c o v e re d they w ere i sev eral
generations away from the originals.
Nathan felt that the transparencies
were so far away in generation from the
photographs he had seen that Wendelle
Stevens had attempted to trick him.
Later, I showed the Meier films to
Nathan, and he laughed at some of
them, but he couldn’t figure out how
Meier flew the ship into a scene and had
it come to a sudden halt; or how it could
hover motionless while a pine branch in
the lower right corner blows in a stiff
wind.
Nathan said, “He would have to be
awfully clever, because that’s a very
steady holding. It would have to be a
very, very good tethering." Then he
said, “Apparently he’s a sharp guy,
very clever. So he should be given some
points for effort.” Nathan concluded
about the films, “If this is a hoax, and it
looks like it is to me but I have no proof,
this is very carefully done. Tremendous
amount of effort. An awful lot of work
for one guy." From all of the scientists,
these were the m ost negative
comments I received.
With Nathan saying that in theory
the films could be hoaxed, I was curious
about the logistics involved. Then I
discovered that a special effects expert,
Wally Gentleman, who for ten years
had served as Director of Special
Effects on the Canadian Film Board and
who, for a year and a half, was director
of special photographic effects for
Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001, had viewed
these same films.
This is what he told me: “To
produce the films, Meier really had to ,
have a fleet of clever assistants, at least
15 people. And the equipment would be
totally out of [Meier’s] means. If
somebody wanted to cheat one of the
films, $30,000 would probably do it, but
this is jn a studio where the equipment
exists. The equipment would cost
another $50,000.” That’s for each of the
seven Meier films. Gentleman also had
examined the photographs. “My
greatest problem is that for anybody
faking this,” [he pointed to one of the
photographs], “the shadow that is
thrown onto that tre e , is correct.
Therefore, if somebody is faking it they
have an expert there. And being an
expert myself, 1 know that that expert
knowledge is very hard to come by. So I
say, ‘Well, is that expert knowledge
there or isn’t it there?’ Because if the
expert knowledge isn’t there, this has
got to be real.” ■
Then there is Robert Post, who
had been at the JPL photo laboratory
for 22 years and was the head of that lab
in 1979, when Nathan brought the
Meier photos to him to have copies
m ade.. Post oversees the developing
and printing of every photograph that
comes out of JPL. Though he analyzed
nothing, his eye for sp o ttin g
fabrications far surpasses a lay
person’s. Post told me: “From a
5
 photography standpoint, you couldn’t
see anything that was fake about the
Meier photos. That’s what struck me.
T h e y lo o k e d like le g itim a te
photographs. I thought, ‘God, if this is
real, this is going to be really
something’.”
Besides working in . the highly
classified field of military defense, David
Froning, an astronautical engineer with
McDonnell Douglas for 25 years, has
done exploratory research to develop
ideas and technology for advanced
spacecraft design. As a longtime
member of the British Interplanetary
Society and the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, he has
presented many papers on interstellar
flight at technical conferences in
Europe and the United States. In
October, 1985, he addressed the
XXXVI International Astronautical
Congress in Stockholm, Froning’s wife
discovered at a friend’s house the photo
journal published by the Elders in fall,
1979, and took it home to her husband
because of one word in the text -
tachyon.
In Meier’s notes from 1975, he
spoke of the tachyon propulsion
system utilized by the Pleiadians. For
over a year Froning had been spending
most of his spare time working to
design just such a theoretical system.
When he read more of Meier’s notes on
faster-than-light travel (he had
contacted the Elders and Stevens for
more information), he found that
Meier’s figures for the time required to
achieve the speed of light (at which
point, according to Meier, the tachyon
system would kick in to make the
hyper leap), and the distance a ship
would have traveled at that point, were
within 20 percent of his own
calculations determined through the
use of complex acceleration formulas.
Froning told me, “If what this Meier is
saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by
some very knowledgeable scientists.
I’ve only discussed this Meier case with
scientists who are fairly openminded
about interstellar flights, but I’ll tell you,
the majority of them think it’s credible
and agree with at least part, or
sometimes' all, of the things talked
about by the Pleiadians.”
During my research I read an
article from a British publication called
6
The Unexplained, in which the author,
referring to the alleged Meier metal
analysis by Marcel Vogel at IBM, wrote,
“Jim Delettoso characteristically failed
to further the cause by claiming that
[the Elders] hold a 10-hour videotape of
‘the entire lab proceedings’ (which Dr.
Vogel denies having made). ‘And,’.
Dilettoso incautiously persisted, “we
have about an hour of him discussing
why the metal samples are not possible
in earth technololgy, going into intrinsic
detail of why it is not done anywhere on
earth.’”
The author, of course, is poking
fun at such a claim. I have seen that
video. I have also seen another video in
which Vogel states, “I cannot explain
the metal sample. By any known
combination of materials I could not put
it together myself, as a scientist. With
any technology that I knowof, we could
not achieve this on this planet.” I’ve
interviewed Vogel twice and he insists
that the metal sample he spent so much
time analyzing is unique. .I spoke with
him again three weeks ago and to this
day he remains fascinated with the
specimen- He said that if the metal
sample had not disappeared while in his
p o ssessio n , he would now be
continuing research on it with a number
of other scientists from IBM and Ames
R esearch. A reporter from the
Washington Post also called Vogel two
days ago and Vogel again verified the
above quote.
With the exception of Vogel, and
possibly Nathan, though he doesn’t
remember, none of these men had
ever been interviewed by anyone in the
UFO community. And Vogel even said
to me on tape regarding one of the
ufologists who did interview him about
Meier: “Treat him with caution. He’ll
ramble on and he’ll quote you out of
context. So watch it.” He also told me
this same person “has taken my
statements completely out of context
and published them. This case has been
badly mangled.”
DOUBLE CHECK
In the book, I go into much greater
detail with each- of the scientists and
engineers. I mention each by his real
name (as I do everyone else in the story)
and I include his place of employment.
After completing the final draft of the
manuscript I mailed to each of the
scientists a packet which included
everything in the manuscript pertaining
to him. 1 asked that each make any
corrections, technical or otherwise, he
cared to make. I have heard back now
from all of them either by mail or by
phone during the past six weeks. Some
■had nothing to change, others had
minor changes. Everything concerning
their analyses of the evidence will
appear in the book exactly as they have
authorized it to appear. (Two weeks
before sending his letter to my
publisher attempting to persuade him
not to publish LIGHT YEARS, Walt
Andrus called me and we talked for
forty-five m inutes. D uring that
conversation, 1 told Andrus of the
comments made by the scientists. I
gave him their names, I spelled the
names for him, I gave him their places of
employment, and I encouraged him to
contact them for verification of their
statements, three of which appeared in
an ad for the book in “Publishers
Weekly.” Apparently, he never did so.)
In his letter to me Michael Malin opened
with this:1“Thanks for letting me see
what you have written. It’s a credit to
your writing that I cannot tell whether
you are a supporter or a detractor of
Dilettoso, and of the claims of the
people who supplied the UFO images.”
Eric Eliason of the U.S. Geological
Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, is the ninth
of the experts 1 spoke with. After
receiving his packet, he wrote to me,
‘‘T hank you for the acc u rate
representation of my views on the
Meier UFO photographs. If your
LIGHT YEARS publication remains as
objective as the pages you provided, 1
will look forward to reading what you
have to say.”
Eliason creates image processing
software so astrogeologists can analyze
photographs of the planets beamed
back from space. He spent two years
producing the intricate radar map of
cloud covered Venus acquired by
Pioneer 10, and his software has been
a p p lie d in p r o c e s s in g s p a c e
photography beamed back by both
Viking and Voyager. He was sent to
F r a n c e and to C h in a as a
representative of the U.S. space
program and an expert in : image
processing. He had analyzed the Meier
photos on his equipment in 1981. He
told me in an interview in August, 1984:
“In the photographs there were no
sharp breaks where you could see it
had been somehow artificially dubbed.
And if that dubbing was registered in
the film, the computer would have seen
it. We didn’t see anything.”
What would you do with evidence
like this? Would you disregard it
because Meier makes outlandish
claims? O r because a ufologist reports
that a colleague in Germany has a
friend who saw ropes and pulleys
hanging in Meier’s barn? Or because
Wendelle Stevens is a believer anyhow?
Or because Wendelle Stevens is now in
prison? Or because Meier has an 18-
inch model of one of the Pleiadian
beamships sitting in his office? Or
because a group of believers has
formed around the man?
And if you had a choice between
the analyses performed by the
scientists Malin at ASU and Eliason at
USGS and those performed by Bill
Spaulding at Ground Saucer Watch, on
which would you stak e your
reputation? After alt of the bad-
mouthing given the Meier case, I was
surprised to learn that ufologists like
Walt Andrus had never heard of Malin,
or Eliason, or Gentleman, or Froning,
or Ambrose, or even the alleged
d etracto rs in Switzerland, Hans
Schutzbach and Martin Sorge,.
Schutzbach was Meier’s right-
hand man for two years, with him night
and day, driving him to contacts,
organizing and cataloguing all of the
p h o to g r a p h s , m e a s u rin g an d
photographing the landing tracks. Then
they had a falling out, and Schutzbach
left. He hates Meier and is certain Meier
is a fraud; if anyone would know Meier’s
"technique” and be ready to divulge it,
Schutzbach would be the man, yet to
this day he has no clue how Meier could
have made the tracks, or the photos, or
the sound recordings, or the films. Nor
does he have even one suggestion for
an accomplice.
Sorge, a cultured man with a
university degree in chemistry and
author of two books, had been
mentioned frequently by ufologists as
the one who discovered charred
photographs and thereby exposed
Meier as a fraud. He told me in the
summer of 1985 that he is “certain” the
contacts took place, though in a
different fashion than Meier describes.
He also told me the real story of how he
obtained the burned slides. That, too, is
much different than the version I got
from, ufologists here in the States.
Again, all of this is in the book.
One of the more interesting ironies
in the current uprising of the UFO
community against the publication of
LIGHT YEARS is that every time
someone slams the book (before it has
been read) he points to Bill Spaulding
and Kal Korff as the two authorities in
whose skills the community places
great faith. After all of the negative
comments I have heard about Bill
S paulding’s work from various
members of the UFO community, why
would anyone rely on his analysis of
anything? Bill Moore, who is not known
for his kind feelings toward the Meier
case or the people who investigated it,
had this to say about Spaulding in an
interview on March 25, 1985: “He’s
generally regarded by anybody in the
field as somebody to ignore. It’s all
puffery. He wrote a paper on the
analysis of photographs, and 1 have a
critique of that paper by a scientist who
knows what he’s talking about, and he
just rips it to shreds. It sounds good
unless you know what the system is and
then you realize that the guy’s a
phony.” ‘ one to Jerry Clark, he responded that
While Korff was young and
inexperienced, these factors do not
necessarily discredit his work. But I am
certain that few ufologists have heard
him say what he told me in an interview
on April 13, 1985: "I’m even open to the
possibility that Meier had some genuine
experience somewhere in there,” he
said, “but there’s so much noise
around his signal that I don’t even know
how to sift it. I’ve always maintained
that, yeah, maybe there’s something to
it. Most of the people who have read my
work say, ‘Ah, the Meier case is totally a
hoax, there’s nothing to it.’ I say, 'The
claims [Stevens and the Elders] have
made don’t hold up; but it’s possible the
guy may have something somewhere."
After three years of researching
and thinking about this story it finally
came clear to me that two things kept
the UFO community from taking a far
more serious look at the Meier case:
One, of course, is Meier’s preposterous
claims, and (in an ongoing effort to
insulate itself from the fringe) the
general reluctance of the community to
accept any claim of contact, especially
repeated contact; the other is that Lee
Elders grabbed all of the evidence and
sat on it. George Earley, after reviewing
the Elders’s UFO...Contact from the
Pleiades, wrote in Saucer Smear that
until the Intercept group produced
some of the evidence they claimed to
have, they deserved to be castigated by
the UFO community. And Earley was
right. So was Korff. The claims by
themselves don’t hold up. But the
evidence in fact existed; I’ve talked to
the people who examined it.
CONCLUSIONS
None of the foregoing is offered as
proof that Meier sat in a Swiss meadow
and conversed with Pleiadians, but only
to demonstrate that people intrigued by
the Meier case, who see a fascinating
story in the man, are not simplistic in
their thinking. No one, including
Stevens and the Elders, has ever
claimed he possesses irrefutable
evidence of the Meier contacts, and I do
not make that claim now. No one in
ufology can make that statement about
any case. . . .
After I sent a letter similar to this
while he continued to have serious
reservations about Meier’s claims to
meet with extraterrestrials, he, too,
found the Meier story “fascinating.”
“My colleagues are going to be
astounded and confused,” he wrote. “It
really has been an article on faith among
us (me included) that this whole'
business was just an exercise in heavy­
handed fraud. But apparently you have
shown it is rather more interesting than
that. It’s ironic. Ufologists forever
complain that scientists and debunkers
won’t take an objective look at the UFO
evidence. You have demonstrated, I
think, that in this case the ufologists
acted just like the people they criticize.”
You will find the book a balanced
report that holds many surprises for
you and other ufologists, and in no way
degrades the stature of the UFO
community or impedes its progress.
Due to cooperation from many of you,
the historical sections in LIGHT
YEARS will provide readers with a true
appreciation of the UFO phenomenon
and those who study it. Like Jerry
Clark, I myself remain fascinated with
Meier, but uncertain about the truth
behind the actual contacts. . believe the former, nor can 1dismiss the
I end LIGHT YEARS with this: "I
would not call him a prophet, though he
may be. I would not rule out imposter,
though I have no proof. I know that if
HOLY COMMUNION?
By Dr, Barry H, D ow ning
Dr. Downing is a MUFON
consultant in Theology.
The publication of Whitley
Strieber’s book Communion: A True
Story (Beech Tree Books, New York,
1987), represents a welcome addition to
the growing literature concerning CE III
UFO cases. Budd Hopkins (Missing
Time), with whom Strieber has
consulted, would classify Strieber’s
experience as essentially a Type 3
abduction case (Hopkins’ classifi­
catio n ), essentially a bedroom
abduction similar to the Betty
A ndreasson story (Fowler, The
Andreasson Affair).
What sets Strieber apart is that he
is a well known author (The Wolfen,
The Hunger, and co-author of
Warday). Strieber has the intellectual
and literary skill to give his experience
an excellent analytical treatment.
A lth o u g h S tr ie b e r , u n d e r
hypnosis, discovered several probable
UFO contacts in his life, his major
experience occurred on December 26,
1985. (W hether this day after
C h ristm as d ate is of religous
significance I am not sure.) He was in
bed with his wife when he became
aware of a presence, he was taken
somewhere in an undressed state,
examined, confronted by what he
believed was a feminine being, and
taken back home.
T h e , title for the book was
8
you boiled the story in a kettle you
would find a hard residue composed of
two things: One would be Meier’s
ravings about time travel, space travel^
philosophy, and religion; the other
would be the comments by the
scientists and engineers impressed with
the evidence he has produced. 1 can’t
latter. He may simply be one of the
finest illusionists the world has ever
known, possessing not the power but
the skill to persuade others to see
suggested by Strieber’s wife, as she
talked in her sleep. The concept of
“communion,” however, is the central
conclusion at which Strieber arrives
about the meaning of UFO visitation.
“They” are trying to get to know us, and
have us know them, be in communion
with them. 1 W ith this already difficult
Strieber does not want to call these
beings angels or demons. Strieber says,
“They take us in the night. They
introduce their instruments and thus
their reality into our brains. It is,
however, too easy to call them evil, just
as it is too easy to say that they are
saints, kindly guides from the beyond.
They are a very real and immensely
complex force, the provocative nature
of which demands neither hate nor
love, but rather respect in a context of
intellectual objectivity and emotional
strength.” (p. 276-77)
Strieber does not intend that his
book be a religious treatment of UFOs,
and his above statement represents his
concern that care be given not to give
too easy a religious interpretation of his
experience. Nevertheless, religious
issues are clearly raised by experiences
such as those of Strieber and
Andreasson.
The issue of UFOs and religion is
one of the many difficult aspects to the
total UFO problem. The U S .
government, with its ridicule and cover-
up technique, has kept the study of
UFOs from being properly accepted by
things that did not happen and do not
exist. Perhaps he has no such ability;
perhaps beings on a much higher plane
have selected him and controlled him
and used him for reasons far beyond
our comprehension. I do know this:
Trying to make sense of it all has been
the most difficult thing I will ever do.
Finally 1 realized, as the Elders had
years before, that the truth of the Meier
contacts wilt never be known.”
the public. Fear of government power
has probably kept many government
employed scientists from appearing
seriously interested in UFO studies.
PLATO IN SPACE SUIT
credibility problem, the scientific study
of UFOs has undoubtedly been less
than happy with the “religious nut
fringe” that has been part of the UFO
scene, with its cults like that of “The
Two” a few years ago, and early
contactees like Orfeo Angelucci,
Daniel Fry, and Howard Menger.
Whereas the early UFO contact
cases seemed to be meeting Plato in a
space suit, offering plans for peace and
scientific advancement, the more
recent contact cases involve deep
psychological ex p erien ces, and
symbolism that may or may not be
religious in intention (the triangle on the
arm of Strieber, the phoenix seen by
Andreasson).
I do not believe that the UFO
mystery can be solved without serious
input from the religious community. It is
students of religion and myth who deal
most frequently with the types of
material we are now facing in the
Strieber and Andreasson case, and I
doubt that an accurate interpretation of
what is happening can occur without
professional religious scholarship being
applied.

Up until the present time, there
has been little interest in the Christian
community in the UFO issue. Recently!
surveyed over 100 Protestant and
Roman Catholic Seminaries in the
United, States, to discover which, if
any, are exploring the possible relation
between UFOs and religion. I was not
surprised to'discover only two cases
where the subject has even been
discussed, and there were other cases
where the. person responding to the
questions made it clear that his or her
name was not to be used.
Strieber tries to interpret some of 1
his experience in terms of the’
symbolism of several world religious.
My main interest (as a Presbyterian,
Pastor) has been the relation between
the biblical religion and UFOs. In my
r>ow confront, in regard to UFOs and
religion, is that it now seems clear that
the UFO reality has both the technical
and psychological ability to have
brought about the biblical religion. One
clear aspect of the biblical religion is
- that a “higher reality” revealed itself to
us humans, sometimes visibly (as with
the “pillar of cloud and fire” of the
Exodus), but sometimes through
psychic dreams or visions (Abraham,
Genesis 15:17, Peter, Acts 10:10).
The; Apostle Paul went through
what we would now call a CE III
experience on the Damascus Road
(Acts 9:1-9), with a bright light flashing
overhead, a voice of Jesus speaking to
him, and temporary blindness being a
1 side effect from the experience. Others
with Paul heard the voice, but saw no
person.
Paul was apparently not abducted
at this point, but continued with help to
Damascus, where he met .Christians,
who healed his blindness. Paul says in
Galatians 1:11-2:2 that he received all
his Christian knowledge through a
series of revelations, not by having
anyone teach him.
How does he explain these
revelations? In Galatians he does not
explain, but in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 he
. says:
“I must boast; there is nothing
to be gained by it, but I will go on to
visions and revelations of the Lord.
1 know a man in Christ who
(Art by Ted Jacobs/Photo by Dennis Stacy)
fourteen years ago was caught up
to the third heaven — whether in
book, The Bible and Flying Saucers, 1 the body or out of the body I do not
mainly explored “multiple witness”’ know, God knows. And I know
UFO sightings such as the “pillar of that this man was caught up into
cloud and of fire” of the Exodus, the Paradise — whether in the body or
“chariot of fire” of Elijah, and the “bright out of the body I do not know, God
light” which blinded the Apostle Paul on knows — and he heard things that
the Damascus Road. cannot be told, which man may not
I p u r p o s e ly ig n o r e d th e utter.”
psychological dimensions of the UFO Betty Andreasson and Whitley
problem, in part because when my Strieber were taken somewhere,
book was published in 1968, the good whether in the body or out of the body
modern contact stories had not yet they could hardly tell, because of the
been written, and in part because the semi-trance state they seemed to be in.
psychological dimensions of the UFO Yet, the experience seemed to be too
problem make an unbelievable problem real to be only.a dream.
even more unbelievable. Whatever it is that isgoingonnow,
it sounds like the main Apostle of
HIGHER REALITY Christianity, Paul, went through similar
events almost 2000 years ago. I suspect
The main new element which we , (continued on page 16)
9
 UFO EVENTS & MICHIGAN WEATHER
By Dan Wright

Dan Wright of Michigan is in presenting their cases. In fact, we in avoid rain, sleet, snow, and perhaps
MUFON’s central states regional the business have come to look gloom of night as well, if fog or haze is
director. askance at reports that fail to satisfy the included. ‘
For many years, there has existed assumption, which is this: UFO The axiom of good weather is not
an assumption within UFO research incidents occur only during good . without foundation. A thunderstorm
and investigations. The late Dr. J. Allen weather. was associated with one alleged UFO
Hynek took it for granted and once For lack of funding and specific crash four decades ago, after all. And
made particular mention of it in a interest, the assumption has not been presumably inclement conditions
private discussion. Numerous other tested bn a broad scale. We “just know” would entail contrivances such as
authors on the subject have alluded to it that planetary visitors systematically windshield wipers, steel belted landing
pods, and sealed-beam running lights.
Comical images aside, it is simply easier
Table 1 to fathom anomalous vehicles under a
TEWERATURE AT HOUR OF UFO EVENT bevy of stars and a clear sky.
(Fahrenheit Departure from the Mean) Over a decade of investigations in
Michigan, a hackneyed truism has
-21/Over -20/-II -10/-I 0 +1/+10 +11/+20 +21/Over
mostly proved valid. If you don’t like the
0.7% 7.71 38.31 5.31 36.11 11.11 0.71 weather, just wait a minute. By reason
Cumulative Departure'from Seasonal Hean: November-Apri1 Events +0.02 Degrees of its latitude, position among the Great
Hay-October Events +0.32 Degrees Lakes and other factors, Michigan’s so-
Table 2 called temperate climate is frequently
harsh in its cold, wet and humid
WIND SPEED AT HOUR OF UFO EVEHT extremes. Our state’s folklore on
(Knots Per Hour)
Over Event Seasonal
weather is one of change and unsettled
0-5 6-10 10-20 20 Mean Mean conditions. Hence, one might assume
Nov-Apri 23. OX 46.6% 27.9X 2.5X 8.8 k/h 10.7 k/h that most or all of Michigan’s UFO
May-Oct: 34.7X 52. OX 12.7* 0.6X 7.2 k/h 8.7 k/h : reports would be jammed into the
Total: 28.4% 49. IX 21.01 1.6X 8.0 k/h 9.7 k/h comparatively few balmy evenings that
Table 3 are left.
VISIBILITY AT HOUR OF UFO EVENT
Such is not the case.
(Miles)
5/Less 6-14 15/0ver DATA GATHERING
12.51 42.31 45.21
Through the cooperation of Mark
Table 4 Rodeghier, Scientific Director of the
CEILING AT HOUR OF UFO EVENT Center for UFO Studies, and Dr. Fred
(Feet) Nurnberger, Chairman of Michigan
S tate U niversity’s Clim atology
1,000/ 1,001- 3,001- Over
Under 3,000 10.000 10,000 Unlimited Division, nearly four hundred Michigan
UFO cases were plotted against eight
2.IX 7.5X 15 ,9X 3.OX 62.5X
specific weather factors.
The project covers the 1947-1977
Table 5 period involving 396 reported UFO
SKY COVER AT HOUR OF UFO EVENT events, each of which is identifiable by
(Percent) exact date, hour of the day or more
Event Seas^al precise time, and the nearest town or
0 10-30 40-60 70-90 100 Mean Mean city. Multiple reports from the same
Nov-Apr: 34. OX 13.2X 11.7% 12.2% 28.9% 47.2% 76.6% locale and within the span of an hour or
May-Oct: 35.5% 20.8% 13.2% 10.7% 19.8% 39.1% 61.4%
Total: 34.8% 17.0% 12.4% 11.4% 24.4% 69. OX
less were counted as a single event. If
43. IX
included these would have increased
the universe of cases by 63 percent.
10
 There’ is undoubtedly still some Table 2 indicates the proportions usually a little calmer than the norm, the
IFO static in the signal from the of events in the cold and warm months, variance between cold and warm
UFOCAT (UFO Catalogue) operated respectively, by the recorded wind month UFO events follows the regular
by CUFOS. But these refinements of speed, shown as knots per hour (k/h), pattern of the state. It must, therefore,
an original data base comprising 1,000 at the nearest first-order station. be concluded that wind is not much of
total reports assign a higher credence For November through April, a factor in Michigan UFO cases.
to the 396 events analyzed. . nearly 70 percent of the reported Visibility is basically defined as the
By chance, exactly half (or 198) of events occurred with a breeze of 10 k/h distance toward the horizon at which
the Michigan events occurred during or less at the nearest station, although prominent objects can be readily
the months of November through April, five cases were aligned with a wind discerned with unaided vision. When
which are obviously colder and in speed of over 20 k/h. The average the visibility is at least 15 miles, there is
general have poorer weather. The speed of 8.8 k/h at the event hour is not minimal haze, smoke or measurable
. remaining half, then, transpired in the substantially calmer than the mean of moisture in the air. At the hour of
May-October period when conditions 10.7 for the cumulative seasonal period. reported UFO incidents, Table 3 shows
are most favorable. These six-month May to October sightings were that the nearest first-order station
divisions are utilized extensively under calmer wind conditions, with recorded such an extended visibility in
throughout the study. nearly seven out of eight accompanied nine out of every twenty cases.
Ten first-order weather stations by a breeze of 10 k/h or less. The event On the other hand, every eighth
spread across the two Michigan hour mean wind speed of 7.2 was event was accompanied by rather poor
peninsulas provided most of the likewise less than the 8.7 for the overall visibility of 5 miles or less, which is
meteorological findings, based upon seasonal dates. indicative of rainy or snowy weather.
hourly readings by professionals While wind speed at the hour and There are, unfortunately, insufficient
around the clock. These primary sites fairly near the reported location was meteorological figures historically on
include Detroit (2), Flint, Lansing,
Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Houghton
Lake, Alpena, Sault St. Marie and Table 6
Marquette. In addition, over 150 RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT HOUR OF UFO EVENT
(Percent of Events)
secondary stations were utilized in
respect to their recorded observations Total Event Annual
40/Under 41-60 61-80 81-100 Events Mean Mean
of rain, snow or other precipitation near
10PM-4AM 2.OX 4.2X 17.6X 14.9% 38.7% 73.5% 81.2%
the site of a reported UFO. [A review of 4AM-10AM 0 I.4X 5.8X 5.8% 13.0% 76.8% 82.9%
the actual case files would assist to 10AM-4PM 1.IX 5.IX 4.6X 2.9% 13.7% 63.6% 63.1%
some extent, although investigative 4PM-10PM 3.6% 11.IX 14.6% 5.3% 34.6% 62.5% 68.4%
Total: 6.7X 21.8% 42.6% 28.9% 100. % 68.9% 73.8%
reports have not systematically
included weather information.]
Table 7
For every meteorological factor,
RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT HOUR OF UFO EVENT
the actual readings at the nearest hour (Percent of Events)
from the station nearest to the reported - Total Event Annual
incident were contrasted with the 40/Under 41-60 61-80 81-100 Events Mean Mean
station’s mean measurement for that Nov-Apr: 10.3X 24.2X 40.OX 25.5% 50.0% 66.2% 73.0%
hour and date through the same 31- May-Oct: 3*OX 21.2X 40.6% 35.2% 50.0% 71.6% 74.6%
year period. ■ Total: 6.7X 22.7X 40.3% 30.3% 100. % . 68.9% 73.8%

FINDINGS Table 8
PRECIPITATION - DAILY INCIDENCE VERSUS UFO EVENT DAYS
Table 1 represents the actual November April May - October Total
Fahrenheit temperature at the UFO Mean Event Mean tvent Mean ” Event
event hour in relation to its departure S1.8X 41.6X 41.4% 44.7% 46.6% 43.1%
from the mean for that hour and date.
The strongest finding is that, in just Table 9
under 80 percent of all reported events, PRECIPITATION - 12-KOUR INCIDENCE SURROUNDING UFO EVENTS
the temperature was between 10
degrees above and below normal. The During/ Near/
Before After After During During
seasonal (i.e. 6-month) departure at
UFO event hours is likewise significant Nov-Apr: 13.7% 12.7% 8.1% . 7.1% 41.6%
May-Oct: 20.8% 17.8% 2.5% 3.6% 44.7%
for both the cold and warm weather Total: 17.3% 15.2% 5.3% 5.3% 43.1%
months. It is thus fair to conclude that,
in Michigan, temperature has nothing
to do with UFO reports.
11
 which to base a comparison. However,
. it was surprising to the author to find
that in a significant proportion of the
cases the atmospheric clarity was less
than optimal. This can be argued either
as evidence of IFO static or a
conclusion that atmospheric clarity is
unconnected with actual UFO events.
Ceiling is the distance from the
ground to the lowest layer of cloud
cover when the sky is at least 80
percent obscured. , .
The most prominent statistic in
Table 4 is the 62.5 percent under the
"Unlimited” column, which is to say
that there was no ceiling in five cases
out of eight. But, a ceiling of 2 miles or
under was present a fourth of the time,
including, 10 percent at 3,000 feet or
less. Clear, starry nights? Reports of
UFO activity are not so restricted.
, To refine- this factor, sky coyer is
further delineated in Table 5 as to
percentage, on average, of the sky
obscured during each of the 6-month
divisions.
The mean sky cover at the UFO
event hour was much lower than the
general conditions for that area, date
and hour would suggest. So, with a
totally cloudless sky accompanying
over a third of all reported UFOs in the
state, there seems to be a connection
between the extremes of little cloud
cover ■ or complete overcast and
reported aerial activity.
, Table 6 expresses the relative
humidity during reported UFO events
in 6-hour blocks.
During the two warmer segments
comprising 10 AM to 10 PM, relative
humidity of 60 percent or less was the
case in over 40 percent of the cases. By
contrast, incidents in the two time slots
from 10 PM to 10AM occurred under
comparatively muggy conditions (81­
100 percent humidity) also in two out of
five cases. These differences coincide
with the general meteorological
readings, though. It tends to be less
humid overall during the daylight hours
of those months.
In three of four time periods, the
data suggests, the average humidity
during UFO incidents was several
percent less than the average recorded
humidity for that time at the nearest
major station. The disparity, however,
is less than dramatic and, considering
12
the earlier sky cover findings, perhaps
less than expected.
In Table 7, the particular UFO
event dates are examined in contrast to
the 6-month periods of relative
humidity at the reported hour of each
event.
A five percent difference is found
between the cumulative humidity levels
at the UFO event hour in the colder and
warmer months, respectively. Each in
turn is a few to several percent lower
than the daily mean. i'
' Two conclusions may Be fairly
reached in this area. First, Michigan is a
very humid state. Second,.fhe relative
humidity at a point in time might, but
probably does not, offer either an
inducement or impediment to aerial
phenomena. ' could not be expected at the outset and
Precipitation, or the lack of it, is at
the heart of any discussion of weather
and UFO reports. Table 8 measures the
daily incidence (expressed as the mean)
of at least a trace of rain or snow -
occurring on a given day at the nearest
secondary station. This is compared
with the actual precipitation during th e.
24-hour period surrounding a reported
UFO event.
Throughout the colder, wetter 6
months, the chance of precipitation in :
. general was one-fourth greater than the
incidence for 12 hours before or after a
reported UFO event. While the
regularity of precipitation overall
declines markedly for the May-October
period, in contrast it is slightly higher on
UFO event days for the same months.
Consequently, for the warmer months
we have the unexpectedly greater
likelihood of raiiVsnow in the time
frame of a UFO event than at any other
time. .
Table 9 further delineates the
incidence of precipitation on UFO
event days. The data are categorized as
to occurrences up to 12 hours before
the UFO report as well as up to 12
hours after and (at least nearby) during :
the event itself.
The key numbers are the totals. In
nearly two of five cases, precipitation
fell before, after or both. Further, it was
recorded during every twentieth event.
Quite obviously, precipitation is not a
deterrent to claims of visitation.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears from the Michigan
experience that reported aerial
phenomena are largely unrelated to
fav o rab le w e a th e r c o n d itio n s .
Moreover, given the assumption that
fewer potential witnesses are outside
d u rin g th re a te n in g o r a ctu al
precipitation, one might project a
higher percentage of UFO events
during marginal weather than the data
suggests.
Sky cover and relative humidity
w ere' somewhat less prevalent at
the hour of reported activity. Even these
factors, though, do not offer a dramatic
variance from the average conditions
historically.
There does appear to be one
further tentative conclusion, which
so is not quantified. In a seemingly
disproportionate share of events, the
aerial ‘a nom aly was reportedly
observed within a hour or so of a
several-hour rain or snow. ■
A related, soft finding is the
uncommon frequency of reportsduring
“windows” in the weather — long hours
or days of precipitation at the nearest
secondary station broken by a 1- or 2-
hour segm ent of no recorded
precipitation. 1
Meteorology and climatology
comprise an admittedly imperfect
science. They depend upon human
observations at no better than hourly
intervals and spaced numbers of miles
a p art. The statistical overview
presented here, therefore, is limited to
pointing general directions and calling
for replication elsewhere.
SYMPOSIUM
JUNE 26-28
AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON,
DC.

MUFON 1987 INTERNATIONAL
UFO SYMPOSIUM
“International Symposium on
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: 1947­
1987” is the theme for the MUFON
1987 International UFO Symposium on
June 26,27, and 28,1987, hosted by the
Fund for UFO Research at American
University in Washington, D.C.,
commemorating the Kenneth Arnold
sighting near Mt. Rainier on June 24,
1947. . W h itley S tr ie b e r ; a u th o r of
The following people have agreed
to speak and present papers for the
symposium proceedings: Bill Chalker
(Australia), Hilary Evans (England),
Bertil Kuhlemann (Sweden), Stanton T.
Friedman (Canada), Cynthia Hind
(Africa), Kanishk Nathan (India),
Vincent-Juan Ballester Olmos (Spain),
Capt. Daniel Perisse (Argentina), Dr.
Roberto Pinotti (Italy), Dr. Willy Smith
(S outh A m erica), Je a n -Ja c q u e s
Velasco (France), and Jun-ichi Yaoi
(Japan). They will provide the
sym p o siu m a tte n d e e s w ith a
comprehensive “world view” of ufology
on a scale that has never before been
attempted. ..
• The tentative schedule for the
symposium is as follows: Friday evening
- reception; Saturday morning *
welcoming remarks and International
I speakers; Saturday afternoon - invited
or contributed papers; Saturday
evening - banquet with speaker;
Saturday night - Panel discussion of the
Abduction Phenomenon; Sunday
morning - MUFON Corporate meeting
and contributed papers; Sunday
afternoon - International speakers and
a closing panel discussion.
Although a major portion of the
symposium will be presentations by the
in tern atio n al le ctu rers, an o th er
important segment will consist of .the
invited papers and panel discussions.
They will cover a variety of subjects,
ranging from technical details of
individual UFO sightings to statistical
NEWS‘N’ VIEWS
analyses of a large number of sightings.
Also to be discussed in depth will be
research into abduction reports and
U.S. government cover-up (F.O.I.A.).
A comprehensive discussion of newly
a c q u ire d in fo rm atio n and its
implications will be provided by such
experts as William L. Moore, Stanton T.
Friedman, and Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee.
The latest abduction-research will
be discussed by Budd Hopkins, author
of Missing Time and Intruders;
Communion; and others. Since most of
the new information on government
cover-up and abductions has been
available only to researchers in the
U.S.A., the international represent­
atives p resen t will carry this
information back to their own
countries.
B ruce M accabee, the h o st
chairman of the - Fund for UFO
Research, has provided the following
prices for each event: Symposium fee
for all sessions, including the Friday
evening reception - $30 per person ($35
if received after June 1). The price of
the banquet and speaker Saturday
evening is $20. The on-campus housing
(dormitory style) rate per night is $27
for a single room and double rooms are
$25 per person. All speakers will be
residing at American University.
If you do not wish on-campus
housing there are also hotels and
motels within a short driving distance of
American University., The closest
motels are: Days Inn, 4400 Connecticut
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008
(202/244-5600), co n v e n ie n t to
Tenleytown Metro (subway) stop on
Red Line to downtown Washington,
D.C.; and Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin
Ave., Chevy Chase, MD (301/656-
1500),' convenient to Friendship
Heights Metro stop on Red Line.
Individuals desiring off-campus housing
must make their own reservations'.
C ab fare from W ashington
N ational A irport to A m erican
U n i v e r s i t y or t h e m o t e l s is
approximately $10 - $12 a n d . from
Union Station $5 - $6. For additional
i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e M U F O N
Symposium, hosted:by the Fund for
UFO Research please call Fred Whiting
(703) 683-2786 or Richard Hall (301)
779-8683; .
To make reservations for the
symposium, banquet and on-campus
housing, please make checks payable
to “FUFOR Symposium Account” and
mail to: Fund for UFO Research, P.O.
Box 277, Mt. Rainier, MD 20712.
(Refunds will be made in full if requests
are received by June 7, 1987.)
Plan now to attend this great
international symposium and find out
why “Forty Years is Long Enough.”
IN OTHERS’ WORDS
By
Lucius Farish
The only UFO-related article to
appear in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER
in recent weeks is a comparison of UFO
sightings and near-death experiences
(NDEs) in the January 20 issue. Dr.
Kenneth Ring, a psychologist at the
University of Connecticut, reported on
his study of 111 NDE experiences,
while researcher Lorraine Davis of
John F. Kennedy University of Orinda,
California interviewed 93 UFO sighters.
Davis claims that 53% of those who saw
UFOs became more psychic after the
event. Post-event personality changes
are apparently much the same in both
groups of percipients.
British writer Peter A. Hough
discusses the controversy over the
early UFO book, FLYING SAUCER
(continued on page 17) •
 SIGHTING COEFFICIENT
Don Berliner is an aviation and
s c ie n c e w riter w ho liv es in
Alexandria, Virginia.
It’s truly am embarrassment of
riches. We have tens of thousands of
UFO reports clogging our fifes...and we
. don’t know exactly what to do with
them. So we stack them into piles and
announce that the mere height of the
pries establishes the significance of the
subject.
But does it? Does the possession
of thousands of reports of funny-acting
lights in the night sky prove anything at
all? Beyond that, does it justify the effort
that goes- into collecting and
investigating hundreds of additional
reports of lights that don’t act like
anything known? Have we learned
anything of value from all this effort? If
the UFO mystery consisted of nothing
but zig-zagging points of fight, would we
be involved in what appears to be a very
important matter? . point scale, any report can be graded.
It’s entertaining, to be sure. And it
makes us feel like we’re doing
something constructive. But the
usefulness of such activity in reducing
the mysteriousness of UFOs is highly
questionable. Most UFO reports
wouldn’t lead to any progress even if
every single available fact could be
pinned down with near-certainty. There
just isn’t any way to learn much from
the sighting of a light that jumps around
the sky. It isn’t a star or planet; it isn’t an
airplane or a helicopter; it isn’t a
meteor. But beyond that, what can be
said? Once we have eliminated all
manner of known phenomena, the
original questions remain. .
In order to concentrate our
severely limited resources (time,
m o n e y , t e c h n i c a l kn ow -h ow ,
e x p e r i e n c e ) on th os e r e p o r t s
possessing the potential for adding to
our knowledge of UFOs, some system
of establishing the relative usefulness of
a report is needed. For decades we
have been far too unscientific about
14
By Don Berliner
judging the merits of reports, and this
has led to a great waste of effort. -
The late J. Allen Hynek was on the
right track when he looked at UFO
reports in terms of their “strangeness”
and “credibility”. If a report does not
rate highly in both these characteristics,
it isn’t worth bothering about: It must
be both highly unusual and highly
reliable if it is to be useful. If it lacks
either of these characteristics, it will
never be of any value in learning about
UFOs or in communicating the essence
of the problem to those outside the
UFO community who may be able to do
s o m e t h i n g if p r e s e n t e d with
information they can believe and which
is so unusual that conventional
ex p lan atio n s are obviously
inappropriate.
In order to make the Hynek
"Strangeness/C redibility” concept
suitable for everyday use, I propose
quantifying it: Using a simple 0-to-10
And by multiplying the two numbers,
the report can be given a K/U
(coefficient of usefulness) which will
establish its potential for helping to
solve the mystery, relative to other
reports.
While differences of opinion are
sure to arise about the awarding of
points for the varying degrees of
strangeness and credibility, they will
probably be in the range of one-to-two
points, and thus of little significance. A
case that clearly is better than others
will score high, while one that is
obviously of marginal utility will rate
low.
I submit the following as a system
which will allow us to concentrate our
efforts on those reports which may
contain information of long-term value,
while setting aside reports that are
worth no more than a shrug of the
shoulders.
STRANGENESS SCALE
0 — Identified as a known bbject or
phenomena, or a report lacking a clear
UFO content
1 — Night light with no apparent
object ,
2 — Night object
3 — Daylight object seen at a
distance
4 — Night Close Encounter of the
First Kind
5 — Daylight CE-I
6 — Ambiguous CE-II
7 — Unambiguous CE-II
8 - CE-III
9 — CE-III with occupant reaction
to the .witness
10 — CE-III with meaningful
communication .
CREDIBILITY SCALE
0 — Witnesses lacking befievability
1 — Single average witness
2 — Multiple average witnesses
3 — Single exceptional witness
4 — Multiple ex ce pti ona l
witnesses
5 — Radar/visual .
6 — Still photos shot by amateurs
7 — Still photos shot by
professionals
8 — Amateur movies or videotape
9 — Professional movies or
videotape
10 — Live television
The test of any new idea is how well
it works. By applying this K/U scale to
well known reports, some idea of its
value can be established. The best that
can be scored by one of the funny,
meandering lights in the night sky
referred to so negatively at the start
would be “10” out of a possible 100. The
highest score by any report we
considered was “27” for the Socorro,
N. Mex., ianding-with-occupants case
of 1964. This seems to make it clear that
there is a severe lack of reports which
could be used to convince scientists,
(continued on page 17)
 t.
AMAZING STORIES
•' '
Jay Fischer is a MUFON
member living in North Carolina.
It’s been forty years since the late
Kennth Arnold made his historic
; sighting of nine, crescent-shaped UFOs
: near Mt. Rainier, Washington. From
the start, science fiction and ufology
became opponents, hostility increasing
; between the two fields every time the
| subject came up. This seems strange to
many people, and understandably so,
for the possibility of alien beings visiting
Earth is as science fictional a concept as
imaginable. Thus, a brief examination
' of why those interested in the two
subjects generally dislike each other so
strongly.
Mr. Arnold’s sighting occurred on
June 24th, 1947, ushering in the
modern phase of ufology, although
r e p o r t s of v a r i o u s U FO -li ke
phenomena can be traced back many
centuries. Once the story made the.
press-wires, world-wide interest was
sparked in so-called “flying saucers.’’
Subsequently, reports of objects much
like those described by Arnold began
coming in, plus several which had
occurred before his sighting made print.
FATE’’
Arnold wanted to publish a
personal account of his sighting, dis­
satisfied with press versions, and so
began looking for a publisher. He was
turned away by larger publishers,
however, for they wanted no part of
such “bunk.” It was nearly a year before
his account of his sighting appeared in
the first issue of Fate magazine, dated
Spring, 1948. Fate, devoted to
accounts of all sorts of unusual or
unexplainable phenomena, was
founded by Curtis Fuller and the late
Raymond Palmer, with Palmer as
editor. He had ' edited the pulp-
magazine Am azing Stories and
F a n ta s tic A d v e n tu r e s , both
specializing in science fiction, for some
By Jay Fischer
years previously. We shall see later that
Palmer’s association with UFOs in the
earliest days had tremendous impact
on the field. It also had great effect on
the relationship between UFOs and sf.
In the late 1940’s, science fiction
was still mostly within the pulp realm,
fighting for respectability. The sudden
arrival of atomic bombs (sudden to non-
sf fans, at least) had given a
considerable boost to sfs battle for
acceptance as serious literature. UFOs
appeared to be a roadblock to that goal,
and weren’t welcomed with either
enthusiasm or open minds on sf’s
behalf. Sadly, that situation has
■persisted to the present, and one
reason for that will become apparent
after considering the following.
SHAVER
We return to Ray Palmer again,
when'he was still editing science fiction.
His magazines had begun to lose
readers in the mid^1940s, and Palmer
sought a suitable gimmick to boost their
circulation. He found it in the
erroneously-titled. “Shaver Mystery.”
The “mystery" was the brain-child of
the late Richard Shaver, starting with “I
Remember Lemuria,” in the March,
1945 issue of Amazing Stories.
The Shaver series concerned an
ancient race of beings who ruled Earth
until driven away by deadly changes in
the sun’s radiation. They left behind
robots called “deros,” operating from
vast underground caverns, which
caused all sorts of trouble for mankind.
All this seemed like simply another lurid
pulp-fantasy, but the twist was that
Shaver and Palmer presented it as fact!
The series brought massive
response, for a pulp magazine, anyway,
and Palmer continued it for the tenure
of his editorship at Amazing.
Eventually, it reached the point where
the “deros” were blamed for all the
world’s ills, including evil itself. When
Arnold’s sighting made UFOs a topic of
interest, Palmer wove them ,into
Shaver’s “mystery," claiming they
originated underground, and were
piloted by “deros!" Naturally, the
reasonably intelligent sf fans weren’t
amused. They became very angry with
Palmer, ostracising him from the main
stream science-fiction community.
Palmer began another sf magazine
in 1949, “Other Worlds,” in which he
continued to publish the material for a
time, until interest waned, when he
finally phased it out. Still, it should be
noted that interest in the Shaver
“Mystery” didn’t vanish completely for
some years. Palmer changed Other
Worlds into a magazine devoted to
ufology’s “lunatic fringe’’ in 1957, often
promoting the theory that UFOs came
from underground, through holes at the
north and south poles!
He also published a limited-
circulation magazine, The Hidden
World, in the early 1960’s, which
reprinted all the previously-published
Shaver material in about sixteen issues.
Palmer’s 1957 transformation of Other
Worlds into Flying Saucers in 1957
effectively removed him from both sf
and ufology, much to the relief of both
parties. .
The point I’m making by discussing
Shaver’s bizarre theories (which he
apparently believed to be true), is this:
Ray Palmer’s well-deserved reputation
for sensationalism caused sf fans to
understandably suspect. UFOs to be
another publicity stunt. It’s possible
that if Arnold had been able to find a
more respectable publisher, the
relationship between sf and the UFO
phenomenon would have been much
friendlier over the years.
So it really isn’t too surprising that
sf fans and UFO proponents began as
antagonists. What is surprising is that
the hostility has continued for so long.
How can so many sf addicts continue to
believe UFOs are nothing more than a
(continued next page)
15
 AMAZING, Continued
hoax concocted by Palmer and Arnold,
considering the enormous amount of
evidence amassed over the years?
Their attitude amounts, at best, to
an arrogant refusal to face facts, and at
worst, to intellectual bigotry. Such
UFO chauvinism can’t be hidden
forever by depending on the excesses
of a man connected with ufology’s
earliest earliest days. A moment’s
consideration should convince any
thinking person that the UFO
phenomenon is far too wide-spread to
be a hoax, especially one 40 years old.
Science fiction has often been
praised for its prophetic predictions of
advances in the various sciences. I
predict ufology wilt eventually prove to
be an area in which sf will look foolish
for having ignored' the obvious. In that
respect, at least, it will have plenty of
company, , . mid-April and an hour earlier by month’s end.
HOLLY?, Continued i
this comes as unsettling news to the
“scientific students” of UFOs. Believe
me, this will also come as unsettling
news to Christian scholars, when and if
they will relax their defenses enough to
examine the evidence.
I have a suggestion for readers of
the MUFON UFO JOURNAL. I know
many ■of. you are frustrated with
knocking on the door of government,
and of science, and saying, “Hey, look
at what is happening,” only to have the
door slammed shut.
I suggest you knock on the door of
your pastor, priest, or rabbi. Give him
or her a copy of Whitley Strieber's
book, C om m union, talk about
MUFON, about government secrecy
concerning UFOs, and about possible
religious implications concerning
UFOs. As background on UFOs and
the biblical religion, I recommend my
articles in The Encyclopedia of,UFOs
(Ed. Ronald D. Story), “Angels,
Biblical,” “Biblical UFO Sightings,”
“Demonic Theory of UFOs,” and
“Religion and UFOs.” Another door
may be shut in your face. But at least
knock.
16
THE NIGHT SKY
By Walter N.- Webb
MUFON Astronomy Consultant
APRIL 1987
Bright Planets (Evening Sky): '
Mars, slowly fading to magnitude +1.6 in Taurus, slides past the Pleiades star
cluster on the 4th and 5th. Don’t mistake the nearby “eye of the Bull” Aldebaran
(orange color) for the planet. Mars lies in the western sky, setting about 11 PM
daylight time in midmonth. The ruddy world can be seen above the crescent
Moon on both April 1 and 30.
Saturn, at magnitude +0.2 in Ophiuchus, rises in the ESE before midnight in
Bright Planets (Morning Sky):
Venus, a brilliant magnitude -3.9 in midmonth, rises only about one hour before
sunrise and is very low in the east during twilight. The planet will be occulted
(hidden) by the crescent Moon on the-25th, an event worth trying to see; stars
or planets that bright are rarely occulted. The show takes place before sunrise
in the Midwest but after sunup from the Northeast. Skywatchers should
employ both the naked eye and optical aid to best observe the display. Local
daylight times of disappearance (D) and reappearance (R) for several cities
follow: Austin, 6:09 (R); Chicago, 5:29 (D) and 6:35 (R); Atlanta, 6:14 (D) and
7:22 (R); Miami, 6:01 (D) and 7:07 (R); Boston, 6:36 (D) and 7:51 (R). Venus
vanishes behind the bright crescent and later emerges on the opposite dark
limb. Northeast observers should locate the Moon and. Venus before sunrise
and then follow the pair with binoculars or telescopes after the Sun comes up.
Jupiter, shining at magnitude -2.1 in Pisces, becomes visible again low in the
east late in April to the lower left of Venus. But it rises then only about three-
quarters of an hour before sunrise.
Saturn has moved to the south by dawn.
Meteor Shower:
The annual Lyrids, radiating from a point SW of Vega in the constellation Lyra,
peaks on the morning of the 22nd at a rate of about 15 meteors per hour. A fat
crescent Moon will interfere somewhat after 3:30 AM daylight time. The
shower’s radiant reaches its highest overhead at dawn. The Lyrids are bright,
white and swift, often leaving glowing “trains” in their wake.
Moon Phases:
First quarter-April 6
Full moon--April 13 3
Last quarter-:April 20 .
New moon-April 27
(continued next page)
 NEVVS‘N"VIEWS, Continued MENT [UFOs: A HISTORY,'August- com pare the scien tists’ quoted
FROM MARS, in an article for the Dec ember 1950 - UFOs: A HISTORY, statements to their knowledge of the
March issue of FATE. Hough contends 1951 - UFOs: A HISTORY, January- factual evidence presented to them for
that the book was a hoax, originated by April 1952 - THE MYSTERY OF evaluation. Mr. Kinder is relying upon
noted astronomer Patrick Moore and UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS: the testimony of these scientists to
Peter Davies. A PRELUDE] are not available in support his book, because the honesty
■ The “Anti-Matter/UFO Update” booklet form and cannot be obtained and integrity of Eduard “Billy”Meier is
column in the February issue of OMNI from Gross at this time, although it is practically nil. There is strong evidence
has Jerome Clark’s report on two hoped they may also be published in that Gary has approached the Billy
brothers whose views on paranormal booklet form at a later date. Meier C a s e as a c o m p e t e n t
subjects could not be more different. A brief rundown on forthcoming investigative reporter, having only a
Kendrick Frazier is editor of books: Budd Hopkins’ INTRUDERS minute possibility of substantiating the
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, widely (Random House; $17.95) and Richard outlandish claims made by Eduard
considered to be the leading publication Hoagland’s THE MONUMENTS OF Meier.
of its type. His brother, James, on the MARS (North Atlantic Books; $14.95/ ■Associate Editor Walt Andrus)
other hand, is very interested in UFOs, $24.95) are set for April release, as of
visiting aliens, etc., and has even this writing. May will see the publication
written a TV miniseries (apparently of Gary Kinder’s LIGHT YEARS
unsold) about contactee Brian Scott. (Atlantic Monthly Press; $18.95) and COEFFICIENT, Continued
I The March issue of OMNI has Timothy G o o d ’s ABOVE TOP legislators and the general public that
JOURNAL editor Dennis Stacy’s SECRET will be published in England we are dealing with something so
account of Conn, lawyer Robert H. . by Sidgwick & Jackson in July. The unusual that it deserves immediate
Bletchman and his campaign to give the price should be approximately $23.00. attention.
UFO subject some respect through a . Richard Hall’s privately printed
national advertising and public relations SPACESHIPS OR SPECTERS? will SCORES
campaign. apparently also be available in the near
Researcher Loren Gross, known future. I’m sure details will appear in 1947 Kenneth Arnold, Mt. Rainier,
for his excellent series of booklets on future issues of the JOURNAL. Wash. K/U 3x3=9
UFO history, has announced that a 1948 Thomas Mantell, Godman
new publication, UFOs: A HISTORY, LIGHT YEARS NOTE
AFB, Ky. K/U 3x4=12
April-July 1950, is now available in a (In his published article, Gary 1950 Trent photos, McMinnville,
very limited edition. Only 50 copies will Kinder stated that he provided the Ore. K/U 3x6=18
be available to JOURNAL readers. The names andplacesof employment of the 1952 W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .
price is $6.00, from Gross at: 690Gable scientists to lMalt. Andrus that he radar/visuals K/U 1x5=5
Drive - Fremont, CA 94538. A few quotes in Light Years a s verification for. 1952 Nash/Fortenberry, Newport
copies of the previous booklet, UFOs: his investigation. Without knowing News, Va. K/U 2x4=8
A HISTORY, January-March 1950 are what they actually said or wrote to Mr. 1957 Car stoppings, Levelland
also still available at the same price. Kinder, it would obviously be extremely Tex. K/U 2x7=14.
Also, please note that the publications _ difficult to question them personally for 1964 Lonnie Zamora, Socorro, N.
attributed to G ross in G eorge confirmation o f Gary’s claims. Mex. K/U 9x3=27 -
Eberhart’s UFOs AND THE EXTRA- After the book is published, the 1966 “swamp gas”, Dexter, Mich.
| TERRESTRIAL CONTACT MOVE­ readers will have an opportunity to K/U 6x2=12 .
1973 Coyne helicopter, Ohio K/U
! APRIL NIGHT SKY, Continued
4x4=16
j T he S tars: : 1979 TV film, New Zealand K/U
1x9=9 ’ - ‘
The spring sky symbol Leo the Lion, with its prominent sickle and the heart star 1980 Cash/Landrum injuries K/U
Regulus, crosses the north-south celestial meridian high in the south at 10 PM 7x2=14 .
daylight time in mid-April. Leo separates the spring constellations behind it to Two types of cases have been
the east from the waning winter patterns to the west. intentionally omitted despite their
potential significance: c r a s h /
To the left of Leo’s tail, look for a wig of long hair, a cluster of two dozen stars retrievals, and abductions. They
called Coma Berenices-Queen Berenice’s Hair. And below it a much larger involve so much more than just
crooked “Y”, with bluish-white Spica at its base, forms part of Virgo the observation that they are in another
Maiden. category of human involvement.
The foregoing is suggested as a
Eleven first-magnitude stars are visible at the same time during the evening tool, not as a solution. Comments and -
hours in the first half of April. From east to west they are Vega, Arcturus, Spica, s u g g e s t i o n s b e a r i n g on its
Regulus, Procyon, Sirius, Pollux, Betelgeuse, Rigel, Aldebaran, and Capella. improvement are welcome.
 UFO NEWSCLIPPING THE NIGHT SKY
SERVICE
The UFO NEWSCUPPING SERVICE By Walter N. Webb
will keep you informed of all the latest MUFON Astronomy Consultant
United States and World-Wide UFO
activity, as it happens! Our service was
started in 1969, at which time we
MAY 1987
c o n tra c te d with a re p u ta b le
in ternational new spaper-clipping
bureau to obtain for us, those hard to Bright Planets (Evening Sky):
find UFO reports (i.e., little known
photographic cases, close encounter Mars, still fading in Taurus, glows reddish in the west and sets about 10:30 PM
and landing reports, occupant cases) daylight time in mid-May.
and all other UFO reports, many of
which are carried only in small town or.
Saturn, retrograding westward in Ophiuchus, is brightening toward a June
foreign newspapers.
"Our UFO Newsclipping Service
opposition. It shines at magnitude -K). 1. In midmonth the ringed planet rises in
issues are 20-page monthly reports, the ESE about 9:45 PM.
r e p r o d u c e d by p h o t o - o f f s e t ,
containing the latest United States and Bright Planets (Morning Sky):
Canadian UFO newsclippings, with
our foreign section carrying the latest Venus still rises about one hour before the Sun and remains very low in the east.
British, Australian, New Zealand and
Its magnitude is -3.9. During the first week of May Venus and Jupiter come
other foreign press reports. Also
included is a 3-5 page section of
within 1° of each other, although the pair will be difficult to see.
"Fortean” clippings (i.e. Bigfoot and
other “monster” reports). Let us keep Jupiter, shining at magnitude -2.1 in Pisces, remains very low in the east not far
you informed of the latest happenings from Venus. The giant world rises about 4 AM daylight time in midmonth.
in the UFO and Fortean fields.”
For subscription information and Saturn has advanced to the SW by dawn.
sample pages from our service, write
today to:
Meteor Shower:
UFO NEWSCUPPING SERVICE
Route 1 — Box 220 The radiant point of the May Aquarids rises about 2:30 AM on May 4 and 5, and
Plumerville, Arkansas 72127 thereafter for a few hours look for the swift meteors to dart out of the east
across the morning sky. They have a rate of about 20 per hour. The farther
south you are, the higher the radiant and the more Aquarids can be glimpsed.

Moon Phases:
MUFON First quarter-May 5
103 Oldtowne Rd. Full moon-May 13
Last quarter-May 20
Seguin, Texas New moon -May 27
78155
The Stars:

The Big Dipper rides high overhead and upside-down in its best viewing
SYMPOSIUM position of the year. The familiar asterism serves as a handy pointer to major
spring stars. The two outer stars of the dipper’s bowl point to the North Star
JUNE 26-28 Polaris; the two inner bowl stars aim toward Regulus, the heart of Leo the Lion
(look for the Sickle); and the curved handle “arcs to Arcturus” in Bootes the
AMERICAN Herdsman (kite-shaped) and then continues an equal distance to Spica in Virgo
the Maiden. Just east of Bootes Corona Borealis the Northern Crown stands
UNIVERSITY out quite clearly — an upside-down diadem of seven stars. It is one of the few
well named constellations in the sky.
WASHINGTON,
For viewers in southern Florida, SE Texas and Hawaii, now is the time to spot
DC. Crux the famed Southern Cross. It stands low above the south horizon after
twilight ends.
18
MESSAGE, Continued to Gary Jones, United States Postal deletions. The members of the Board
for Florida, died on December 8, 1986 Service, P.O. Box 26065, Salt Lake who were instrumental in formulating
at the age of 80. Mr. Bean, a retired City, UT 84126 for investigation of the proposal had no objections,
RCA engineer with many television possible fraud. whereas others found it to be either
related patents and truly a UFO Most people, who received the dictatorial or very difficult to implement
pioneer, was recognized by Larry King brochures were impressed at first, in an organization composed of
on his CNN radio show, featuring the however, they failed to read the fine volunteers. The P.I.P.E Committee
Japan Air Unes flight 1628 UFO print at the bottom of each page 4, followed proper procedure and
sighting report. Norman had appeared which may prevent the operator from protocol in this matter.
on many of Larry King’s radio programs being sued for mail fraud. The last In addition to the commitee
when they both lived in Miami, Florida. sentence of the fine print states: “ This headed by Richard H. Hall to deal with
Mildred Biesele, State Director four page document contains some complaints submitted by members, a
for Utah, has volunteered to publish the information which is fictional procedure specified in the MUFON by­
MUFON newsletter and P.I.P.E. Line dramatization." Yes, it is unadulterated laws will be evoked. MUFON officers
this summer for Marge C hristensen, fiction — buyer beware! (State Section Director or higher) are
who plans to travel extensively between it + it invited to submit in writing, proposals
school semesters. The following material is of a very for improvements, problem areas, or
it it ★ sensitive nature as it applies directly to revisions in procedures to the
If any Journal readers have the operation and management of a International Director to be placed on
received a br och ur e' from an voluntary worldwide organization — the agenda for the Annual MUFON
organization calling themselves the the Mutual UFO Network. MUFON is Corporate Meeting on June 28,1987 in
International Space Science a non profit democratic organization Washington, D.C. at least one month
Foundation (I.S .S .F .) with the governed by 17 Board of Directors, prior to this date. Spontaneous
introductory words “Dear Future which includes the Executive Officers. complaints from the floor will not be
Millionaire,” please beware because It is an organization of volunteers, recognized during the annual meeting.
this is a grand “rip-off” instigated by a which creates problems not normally + * +
p e r s o n n a m e d “ Rick A r d y n , associated with a corporation having The National UFO Conference
President,” in Salt Lake City, Utah. everyone on their payroll. (NUFOC) will be held June 12, 13 and
They have produced a professional Suggestions for improvements or 14, 1987 at the Burbank Hilton Hotel
appearing brochure selling audio tapes criticism of existing practices or adjacent to the Burbank California
on UFO related subjects for $20. The procedures should be directed in Airport. Speakers scheduled are Bill
enclosures features the details of the writing or by telephone to the Moore, Stanton Friedman, Hal
incredible “Texas UFO Incident” which International Director for response or Starr, Timothy Good from England,
purportedly occurred on the evening of assignment to the Board of Directors and Richard Neal, M.D. The genial
October 13, 1986 in Terlingua, Texas. for their study and ultimate decision. A Jim Moseley will M.C. the conference.
The address in the brochure to order small personnel committee has been The price of rooms per night is $55. For
tapes is 2035 East 3300 South. Mildred established within the Board of reservations to the conference, please
Biesele checked and found that this is a Directors to expedite problems and write to Bill Moore at 4219 West Olive,
place where one can rent post office complaints from the membership. Suite 247, Burbank, CA 91505 or
boxes, wrap and mail packages, etc. Richard H. Hall has volunteered to telephone (818) 506-8365.
The telephone number is an answering chair this committee. Over a year ago The 4th BUFORA International
service. The notary public signature on the P.I.P.E. Committee submitted a UFO Congress will be held July 10-12,
early copies was Tom Branch. Mr. Branch proposal to the MUFON Board of 1987 at the London Business School in
told Mildred Biesele that his name had Directors concerning good public London, England. For further
been forged. Later copies have the relations policies with the news media. information please enclose a S.A.E. for
name Susan C. Hilton where the A copy was distributed to each of the your reply to Congress Secretary, c/o
notary seal has been sketched with pen members of the Board of Directors for, 16, Southway, Burgess Hill, West
and ink. The case has been turned over their evaluation, suggested revisions or Sussex RH15 9ST, England. On July
9th Bertil Kuhleman has scheduled
the annual meeting of the International
MAY NIGHT SKY, Continued Committee for UFO Research (ICUR).
Immediately following the BUFORA
This month a number of first-magnitude stars flirt with the horizon during Congress on Monday, July 13, 1987 at
midevening hours, thus becoming potential IFO candidates. Starlight must the same location, Walt Andrus has
pass through more air near the horizon than higher up, causing stars (and scheduled a meeting for all MUFON
planets, too) to appear to move and change brightness, color, and shape. Foreign Representatives and members.
About 9 PM in midmonth look out for Aldebaran (in the WNW), Betelgeuse
(west), Sirius (WSW), and Vega and Deneb (NE). About 9:30 ruddy Antares
rises in the ESE.
19
 DIRECTOR S MESSAGE
A separate article is published in
this issue of the Journal with details on
the MUFON 1987 International UFO
Symposium in Washington, D.C. on
June 26, 27 and 28, hosted by the Fund
for UFO Research. We look forward to
meeting many of our members in
person at American University. This
will probably be one of our most
significant UFO symposiums based
upon the location, news media events,
new books being published and the
international scope of the speakers.
★ * ★
The Federal Aviation Administra­
tion (FAA) News Conference on March
5, 1987 at the Federal Building in
Anchorage may well signal a relaxation
by the U.S. Government on UFO
cover-up and an introduction to future
cooperation with the general public.
MUFON ordered the complete
package of documents, drawings,
pho to gr ap hs , transcriptions of
interviews with the flight crew, audio
tapes of voice communications
between ground controllers and JAL
flight 1628 and audio tapes of flight crew
interviews from the FAA in Anchorage
that were made available for sale in an
unprecedented action. Charles P.
Ward, State Section Director, not only
represented MUFON at the press
conference with handouts, but video­
taped the entire meeting, delivering it to
Seguin on March 9th. Mr. Ward also
mailed the press release package
which contained many of the items
listed above that are being sold to the
public. Richard Famell in Juneau
mailed a copy of the Anchorage Daily
News of March 6, 1987 covering the
FAA Press Conference of March 5,
1987 by Paul S te u c k e , FAA
Spokesman.
★ * it
We are proud to announce the
following new State Section Directors:
Guild A. Fetridge for Westchester
and Rockland Counties in New York;
Jack Poorbaugh for Hernando and
by
Walt Andrus
Pasco Counties in Florida; Duane R.
Sanderson for the Kansas counties of
Shawnee, Osage and Wabunsee, who
will also be checking into the MUFON
Amateur Radio Net as WOTID, and
Judith M. Diliberto, M.A. for Suffolk
County in New York.
The MUFON sponsored ad
campaign prepared by Charnas, Inc. of
Manchester, Conn, received a much
needed “shot-in-the-arm” with the
publication of an article by Dennis
Stacy in the March 1987 issue of OMNI
magazine on page 87. Numerous
subscribers called Charnas before the
magazine reached the news stands and
volunteered to help or make donations
to the $27,500 seed money required to
initiate the national advertising
program. Robert H. Bletchman
introduced this ambitious project as his
speech to the MUFON 1986 UFO'
Symposium in Lansing, Michigan. A
special escrow bank account has been
opened at the NBC Bank of Seguin,
Texas to receive funds dedicated to the
ad campaign. Brochures were
previously mailed to 18 celebrities who
have publicly related a personal UFO
experience, seeking their financial
support. Mr. Bletchman is to be
com mended for his professional
handling of this unique but vital project.
MUFON members are invited to
contribute seed money earmarked for
this ad campaign as a potential federal
income tax deduction.
The ballot to vote for your
candidate for the MUFON AWARD
FOR OUTSTANDING WORK IN
THE UFO FIELD for 1986-87 is
enclosed with this issue of the Journal.
Please return all ballots to MUFON in
Seguin, Texas by June 1, 1987 so the
engraved plaque may be prepared and
presented at the MUFON 1987
International UFO Symposium in
Washington, D.C.
T h e t h i r d N a t i o n a l UFO
Information Week will be held August
10-17, 1987. Plan now to support this
project by offering public information
activities in your state.
* + +
CLEAR INTENT by Lawrence
Fawcett and Barry Greenwood, the
best documented book on U.S.
government involvement in the UFO
subject to date, released in 1984 by
Prentice-Hall, will soon be released for a
second time by Simon and Schuster.
Simon and S chuster purchased
Prentice-Hall, resulting in the book
being released again in March with a
new cover and a new publicity
campaign.
In the search for a viable host for
the MUFON 1988 Internationa) UFO
Symposium, Ray Boeche, State
Director for Nebraska, will present this
challenge to the Nebraska group at a
major meeting on April 5,1987 for their
consideration. There are 3 potential
locations in Lincoln, Nebraska with
outstanding facilities to host our
symposium.
The library project, proposed by
Marge Christensen and the P.I.P.E.
Committee to increase the distribution
of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, is
progressing very well on a selective
state by state plan. The MUFON UFO
JOURNAL was displayed at the
Midwest Library Conference in
Chicago in January 1987. An
advertising letter and enclosures has
now been mailed to all public libraries in
the states of Florida and Ohio. State
Directors are responsible for obtaining
the name and mailing address of the
public libraries in your state so they
may be included in this significant
program, Indiana will be covered next.
Massachusetts MUFON has elected to
cover their own state with a similar
mailing.
Bob Pratt learned from Mrs.
Louise Bean that her husband
Norman Bean, former State Director
(continued on page 19)